Discipline Focus (Insightful Strikes) states the following:
At 4th level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus on damage rolls whenever you execute a strike from the chosen discipline. At 12th level, you can choose a second discipline to which this ability applies.
and Flashing Sun states the following:
Flashing sun allows you to make an additional melee attack during this round. As part of this maneuver, you take a full attack action and make your normal melee attacks. However, you can make one additional attack this round at your highest attack bonus. All the attacks you make this round, including the extra attack granted by this maneuver, are made with a -2 penalty.
So, the thing is, Flashing Sun includes a full attack in its description, and Insightful Strikes says "damage rolls", in plural. Does this mean that it adds the Wis bonus to each attack’s damage roll, only to the one added by the strike itself, or neither?
"Magic Weapon, Legion’s", states the following (emphasis mine):
This spell functions like magic weapon (see page 251 of the Player’s Handbook), except as noted above and as follows. It affects only weapons held by allies when the spell is cast. It has no effect on ammunition.
and "Magic Weapon" states the following:
You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.
Therefore, does the Legion’s version also consider the monk’s unarmed strikes are weapons held or not?
I’m going to cut to the chase, in D&D 5e, if a player wearing adamantine armor gets hit with an adamantine weapon, what happens?
The spell steel wind strike says that you
vanish to strike like the wind.
At first glance you might read this as an inconsequential part of the description. But strictly speaking there is no flavour text in spell descriptions. Vanishing implies being unseen, which (if we carry on the logic) grants advantage on attacks due to being unseen.
I’ve seen this argument appear in a couple of answers recently and thought it deserved a question of its own.
However, steel wind strike looks like a pretty strong spell without advantage, and granting advantage on all the attacks seems like something too important to leave to a bit of rules lawyering, which makes be doubt this interpretation.
Do you intrinsically gain advantage on all of steel wind strike‘s attacks?
In a recent session of 5e, our monk (4th lvl, way of Drunken Master) was using unarmed strikes, and the DM claimed that she could use any number of available Ki points to increase the amount of unarmed strikes granted by Flurry of Blows by an equal amount(spend 1 point to make 2 strikes, spend 2 points to make 3 strikes, etc.). I argued that since the Furry of Blows text says you can make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action, only one Ki point could be spent on this specific feature per turn. By RAW, how many strikes can be made in a single turn using this particular feature?
Unseen Weapon (Su): As a standard action, you can wrap any melee weapon you wield in a layer of shifting shadows. This causes the weapon to darken, become less distinct, and leave a trail of shadow behind it as it moves. Your weapon must be in hand and ready to use for you to draw upon this power. You can dismiss the effect with a free action; dropping or sheathing the weapon also ends the effect.
It specifies "any melee weapon you wield" and "Your weapon must be in hand", and I think fists and feet are not able to accomplish those requisites, but just in case, it doesn’t hurt to ask.
I know that Natural Weapons don’t all count as Unarmed Strikes, but I keep hearing online that Unarmed Strikes are a kind of Natural Weapon. Is this the case?
As the title says. If, let’s say, I catch my opponent flat-footed and use Claw at the Moon, do I check against flat-footed AC or complete AC?
Claw at the Moon:
As part of this maneuver, you attempt a Jump check to leap into the air and make a melee attack that targets your foe’s upper body, face, and neck. The Jump check’s DC is equal to your target’s AC. If this check succeeds your attack deals +2d6 damage. if this attack threatens a critical hit, you gain a +4 bonus on your roll to confirm it. If your check fails, you can still attack but deal no extra damage or gain a bonus to confirm a critical hit. The maneuver is still considered expended.
In my campaign we have a 6th level monk. She has:
Starting at 6th level, your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
The party is fighting a homebrew boss, a Mage Eater, who is immune to magical damage. Does this mean the monk would have no way of dealing damage to it with her Unarmed Strikes? Or can she decide to make nonmagical attacks while attacking with her body?
- She would be able to deal nonmagical damage with one of her nonmagical weapons.
- This question is not about whether this homebrew monster is balanced or not.
A new player told me he wants to use the great weapon and choose ‘Unarmed Strikes’ as his weapon. I told him no because Unarmed Strikes are not considered weapons. He argued with me and I told him I would ask here and let this be the ruling